bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:BUT, he should not have been pointing the weapon at anyone. I'm sure Hollywood has figured out camera angels to make it appear that someone is point the gun at another person when in fact they are not. He should have never been pointing that weapon at anyone, period.
You obviously have not seen many movies. And this statement is just simple ignorance of the various types of shots used in filmmaking. There is a type of POV shot in which the character looks directly at the camera (to establish the audience's ability to see from an opposing character's POV). In that case the gun would be pointed at the camera and whoever is operating it. A famous use of this is in 'Silence of the Lambs', and another is the 'gun barrel' opener to 007 films - though that POV shot is at a much longer distance than is normally used.
Really, I obviously haven't seen many movies because I am capable of reasoning that Hollywood has tricks to simulate pointing a weapon at someone? Just because a shot has the weapon pointed towards a camera doesn't mean someone was behind the camera when that was done. It also doesn't mean the weapon in that shot was capable of firing a round. I guess the whole idea of movie magic goes out the window. They have been doing it safely since Brandon Lee was shot. Pretty sure that showed why you don't point guns at people, prop or not.
I am not laying blame with Baldwin. I don't know enough about the industry to say if he was following SOP or not. If he was, he will be fine (from a liability stand point), if not, the chips will fall where they do. Someone has a liability issue, whether or not that warrants criminal charges has yet to be seen.
Just because people on here are saying that some cardinal rules of weapons safety was not followed is not the same as saying that Baldwin needs thrown in jail, but again we disagree, so we are wrong (that is a cardinal rule of non-av).
If I were to go through a risk assessment on the situation as I expect it to stand through the 6 tier hierarchy of controls. ERICPD (Eliminate, Reduce, Isolate, Control, Personal protection, Discipline).
Risk = Hazard x likelihood
Likelihood = the chance or frequency of the hazard occurring
Hazard = an even that causes energy to be absorbed by a person, animal or object and have lasting damage.
First you try to stop the hazard, failing that you reduce the hazard, then you move the hazard away from the at risk parties, then you reduce the effects of the hazard and finally you train people.
Can we reasonably remove the hazard from the situation. Can we use a fake gun and add effects later? Ultimately this is very difficult to achieve the same outcome and we see time and time again that films 'special effects' look more and more 'special' as time progresses. This, in a lot of circumstances means that it cannot be done.
Can we replace the hazard with something less hazardous. Can we use a blank? I don't think we need to actually shoot something so this seems reasonable (are there times on set where one might need a live round for something?
Can it be done in an contained environment away from users and subjects of the hazard. Can the shooting be done in separate place? does it have to be on the set. do the people need to be near by? can you control who is there.
4. Controls (Engineered)
Can we physically control the hazard in such a way that likelihood of the hazard occurring is reduced. can the gun be made to only fire when shooting in a certain direction? Can any projectiles be bound to the weapon? (Like we would for livestock killing) Can it be done in an contained environment.
5. Personal protection
What additional safety items can be provided to keep people safe, bullet proof screens, safety shoes, high viz vests.
make sure that all controls are monitored reviewed and enforced.
Discipline is making sure the other controls are followed (normally involves documentation). This is not the self discipline of an individual and how they perform.
This involves training ans skills. People are normally the most fallible part of the system and we control outside of people as far as is practicable.
You always do the list from top to bottom, those at the top are more effective than those at the bottom, guns are not special and do not magically sit outside this. (neither do planes) If you can reasonably make it so that someone can shoot a real gun, with live rounds all day long and no,one gets hurt then the lower ones on the list don't really matter. After having written this list down I am convinced that the best way to have controlled this would have been to remove anyone who doesn't need to be in the vicinity away and use remote systems where possible.
Having dealt with accidents at work places I can tell you that the old adage is true: if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.